Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Shortcut:
WP:BLP/N
WP:BLPN


Please add new incident reports at the BOTTOM of this page.
Don't forget to sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp.


This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require outside intervention related to the policy of Biographies of living people.

If you can, simply fix or remove the offending material. This noticeboard is for issues which require outside intervention, such as in disputes with tendentious editors or in cases where outside persons are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time. It is not for simple vandalism or material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument.

For general content disputes regarding biographical articles consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies.

All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to assist fellow editors regarding the reports below. Please make your comments as concise as possible. Fellow editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.

See also:

To report a possible violation of BLP
  • Create a new section with the article name
=={{subst:Blpwatch|Article name}}==
  • Describe the dispute using the following format:
* {{article|article name}} - brief explanation // ~~~~ or
* {{userlinks|username}} - brief explanation //~~~~
  • Add new entries at the bottom of the page
To close an incident
  • Copy the section to the relevant archives page.

Contents


[edit] Fred Newman (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Cberlet has been, for close to 2 months, incessantly been attemting to insert large chunks of his highly POV, politically motivated and obsucre article from 1987into Fred Newman. The article already has extensive and more than adequate amounts of criticisms included already, including reference to Berlet's writings. Yet Berlet incessantly tries to insert multiple paragraphs from his own largely unknown work into the article, and refusing all that time to address numerous issues about his work, which he feels he has a right to include without needing to discuss with other editors. And despite countless requests, he continually uses the derogatory phrase "Newmanite cult" in the talk pages and in edit summaries. BabyDweezil 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a fantastic misrepresentation of what is a lengthy campaign of apologia by BabyDweezil, who has refused formal mediation, to delete any serious mention of the copious published criticism of Fred Newman as a cult leader, among other claims. I welcome intervention.--Cberlet 15:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Interested parties are invited and encouraged to peruse Fred Newman and assess the amount of criticism currently included in the article, including references to Berlet. The most recent attempt to violate WP:BLP was Cberlet inserting three paragraphs from a 20-year-old letter to the editor in a defunct obscure magazine.
The title of the source Cberlet continually attempts to include substantial sections of is "Institutes for Social Therapy and Totalitarian Cultism." The term "Totalitarian Cultism" is an invention of Berlet's, and will not be found anywhere in social scientific literature outside of Berlet's employer, Political Research Associates and a handful of fringe web writers. As such it is original fringe research with no standing in the academic community, and not acceptable per WP:BLP despite it's being "published" on the highly politically partisan PRA website. BabyDweezil 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
We note the criticism, and identify and cite the critics. It is presented as one part of a balanced account. I do not see a blp problem here. Tom Harrison Talk 17:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, as it applies to this source:
Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject.
This completely applies to the quotes from Berlet's partisan and obscure "publication.BabyDweezil 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how. Political Research Associates is not obscure, the material is not published without editorial oversight, and they are no more partisan than National Public Radio. Publiceye.org is routinely cited as a reliable source for material within their research expertise. Tom Harrison Talk 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Show me a source in the literature on therapeutic modalities--(a journal article, a statement from APA etc) that cites Chip Berlet and/or his claims in a discussion of Newman. The only mention to be found anywhere in the scholarly literature is in a review of a Newman book (Nissen M et al Theory & Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 3, 417-426 (1999) where the Berlet report is mentioned and dismissed. Berlet's "expertise" is self-proclaimed, and not recognized with respect to Newman. His terminology ("totalitarian cultism") is invented, and has no corroboration in sociological or psychological literature. Please show me a countervailing view if you have one. Likewise, the so-called "editorial oversight" of PRA is self-proclaimed as well, and partisan. It is not suitable as an encyclopedia article. BabyDweezil 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Fred Newman, not therapeutic modalities. I do not see why criticism may only be included if it comes from a critic on some approved list. Beyond that, you are no more likely to be persuaded by repeated assertion than I am, so I see no point in simply contradicting each other. Tom Harrison Talk 18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems far more enthralled with Chip Berlet than the world at large. Oh well, the old one eyed man is king sorta thing I suppose....BabyDweezil 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kerry Bolton (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

  • Kerry Bolton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The subject is a New Zealander who may have been a proponent of occultism/satanism, fascism, and Holocaust revisionism. We need help fleshing out this article with proper sources and neutral POV. The subject has complained repeatedly about the contents, so it's been reduced to a near stub. There are reliable sources available including substantial references in two books. -Will Beback · † · 03:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a near stub is all that is needed. Is he all that important? It sounds to me that the only thing notable about him are his shocking opinions. Steve Dufour 08:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If we don't include the shocking opinions the there's reason for the article at all. Omitting his chief notability unbalances the article. -Will Beback · † · 06:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. What I meant to say is that all we need to say is that he is a person with such and such opinions and include links where his opinions can be read and others where they are discussed and criticized. The near-stub article does this. Steve Dufour 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW one of his shocking opinions is that Hitler was too democratic.Steve Dufour 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The current stub does not include reference to his most notable opinions, and for some reason the bibliography of his books has been deleted too. It also fails to mention the various organizations that he's been associated with or started.
The reason I posted this notice is to help decide which sources are sufficiently reliable to document his biography and opinions. -Will Beback · † · 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I found that the links gave me a pretty good picture of where he is at. I agree that a bibliography of his writings would be in order, without taking out the links to the critical articles of course. Steve Dufour 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't expect readers to view all of the external links in order to get the basic information. -Will Beback · † · 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
To me it seems that the basic info about Mr. Bolton is that he lives in New Zealand and has some really "out-there" opinions. If I want to read his opinions the links are there for me to follow. Steve Dufour 06:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Rathbun (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Mark Rathbun was a top official in the Church of Scientology. Now it seems he has become a "non-person". I think he is notable enough. However about half of his article is taken up by someone's conspiracy theories about him. Steve Dufour 08:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landmark Education (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Describe the dispute using the following format:

Adminstrator William Connelley referred me to this section BLP for an organization "Landmark Education" as BLP is supposed to handle organizations as well. One of the sources used for a major negative, defamatory statement is a forgery. Here is the quote first from Admin William Connolley:

I think the crucial point here is the apparent forging by the AmPats. And I don't understand what Sme is doing by adding *both*. The fact that the official one doesn't have Landmark Education suggests at best that Smeelgova hasn't read it. Adding the non-official AmPats, which is near identical apart from the (presumably deliberate) false insertion of Landmark Education, only makes sense if Smeelgova is aware of the difference. In fact I can't think of a way to interpret this that makes sense os Smeelgova's behaviour - you may have a case for complaint William M. Connolley 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The article on Landmark Education has a section on a classification by the government of Austria of Landmark Education being a cult/sect. The section gives two references: one from the web site of the US State Department and one from American Patriots (an unoffical site with advertisting on it). Both sites purport to have the same "status of religious freedom in Austria 2006" report, and they differ by two words: "Landmark Education." Request: I request that you redact the whole section on Austria labelling Landmark Education a cult. Sm1969 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the statement in the Landmark Education article, together with the real US State Department reference and the forgery: In 2006 the government of Austria listed Landmark Education as a Sekte (cult), along with the Church of Scientology, the Unification Church, and other groups:

The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government were small organizations with fewer than 100 members. Among the larger groups was the Church of Scientology, with between 5,000 and 6,000 members, and the Unification Church, with approximately 700 adherents throughout the country. Other groups found in the country included Divine Light Mission, Eckankar, Hare Krishna, the Holosophic community, the Osho movement, Sahaja Yoga, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, Landmark Education, the Center for Experimental Society Formation, Fiat Lux, Universal Life, and The Family. [1]

Also note that not only has User:Smeelgova re-added this forged-source report, but also put termed "sects" by the Government and Landmark Education in bold. Smeelgova has repeatedly re-added this redacted material, even after being warned of the forgery. Sm1969 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Tried to check: the American Patriots version doesn't seem to be a forgery; in fact, the official German language version of the same US government report, hosted by the US Embassy in Vienna, agrees with it and lists the group. ([2]). Also, here is the original German text of an earlier version of the Austrian government's report, the Sektenbroschüre of 1999: [3]. It lists Landmark Education under "Psychogruppen" (psycho groups) - Other sources: The Roman Catholic church in Austria lists it as a "Psycho-cult" ([4]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC) [That's just Oberoesstereich, not all of Austria.] and it comes with a warning as well: Der Begriff "Psychokulte" wurde ursprünglich geprägt, um Gruppen zu kennzeichnen, deren hauptsächliche Wirkung in der Veränderung der menschlichen Psyche besteht. Diese Definition läßt trotzdem keine klare Einordnung von Gruppen unter dem Begriff zu.
I guess then there are several things here. First it is possible that Landmark Education wrote to the US State Department to redact the material becuase LE *never* had operations in Austria. There is a world of difference between being a "Psychogruppe" and a "Sekte." Further, even the Vienna Embassy version merely states that it is an "other group" not a "Sekte." Sm1969 10:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There were court hearings on the subject in Germany where a similar Senate committee was forced to retract the position that Landmark Educaiton espoused a world view. Sm1969 11:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The other thing I noticed is that: A) This is a publication of the US government, not Austria. B) The German language version of it does have Landmark Education, whereas the English language version of the exact same report does *NOT* have Landmark Education. My guess is that Landmark Education wrote to the US government to remove Landmark Education and only took into account the English-language version. In any event, I don't see any source that Austria ever called it a "Sekte", but a "Psychogruppe." Sm1969 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please note that this is not a "forged report", that is an assumption made by User:Sm1969. In fact, please see the User:Will Beback's comment at [5], and also please see the International Religious Freedom Report 2005, in which Landmark Education is actually termed a "sect". Yours, Smeelgova 21:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Sergei Kovalev (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Could you please take a look at the article about Sergei Kovalev including Discussion of the article? A group of Russian users started making libelious and unjustified claims (the "Critique" section) about him and other people from Moscow Helsinki Group who are trying to protect human rights in Russia. All references provided by these people can be found only in unreliable sources that were not translated to English. I tried my best to accomodate some of their concerns and follow NPOV policy. But it seems to make them only more angry. When I tried to incorporate an alternative reliable reference to Dr. Baiev, they simply deleted it. What would you suggest? I am a new person in Wikipedia. That was a fair article just a couple of days ago, in my opinion. Biophys 21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aysel Sengün (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

  • Aysel Sengün (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - about a Turkish-German woman who dated one of the 9/11 hijackers and had to testify in a related trial. Given the sensitivity of the topic, the fact that the person involved has had to go into witness protection, and the corresponding fact that the article has absolutely zero prospects for future development, I thought a redirect was the best solution. Unfortunately, the author is rather attached to having the article in its current form. --Michael Snow 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this article is one of the worst things I yet seen here on Wikipedia. What is the purpose? The poor girl's life could very well be endangered, as well as the lives of her family. And for what? Someone's "right to know"? Steve Dufour 18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Schwarz (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Barbara Schwarz is the subject of her own article, against her wishes, and is also featured in the article on Mark Rathbun. On the talk page of her article one of the regular editors there wrote to me: If you are genuinely "someone [who] cares about her", then recommending a course of psychotherapy by a qualified and licensed practitioner would appear to be a more practical extention of this sentiment than quibbling over words in an article you say "has almost no importance." If this is true do you think that a person in need of psychiatric care should be the subject of a Wikipedia article? Thanks. Steve Dufour 17:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not again. Barbara Schwarz has been discussed here before. Plus, if you have to delete people who need mental help, we would have to delete El Presidente George Bush too. :-) --Tilman 18:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to keep discussing her. You do not have to however. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Her psychiatric condition should have no bearing on the matter. I could easily compile a list of Wikipedia articles about mentally ill (or allegedly mentally ill) persons. However, I do think that it should be tightened up - for instance, is reference #3 supposed to account for the claim that "She says she lived in a submarine village beneath Great Salt Lake as a young child until she was kidnapped and taken into Germany at age 4 by Nazi agents"? It's unclear from the article, and the link goes to a newsbank article that can't be directly accessed. wikipediatrix 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I still have a problem with an article whose main purpose seems to be to make fun of someone's alleged mental illness. Steve Dufour 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't get the impression from the article that it's making fun of her at all. What specific sentences are you referring to? wikipediatrix 16:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
How about the one about the underwater submarine base? Steve Dufour 05:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC) p.s. If you are not making fun what are you trying to do?
The article makes no evaluation of that statement. However, it is a fact that she publicly claimed to have lived her childhood in an underwater submarine base. Readers may or may not agree with this. Some may think this is funny. Some won't. --Tilman 07:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see why she is important enough to have her own WP article. Steve Dufour 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You know very well that this "argument" of yours has been discussed several times already. You're wasting people's time by bringing it up again and again and again and again. --Tilman 18:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You have the right to ignore what I say all you like. I'm sure the vast majority of people here already are. Wishing you well as always. the real Steve Dufour 03:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgina Beyer (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Georgina Beyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not a dispute, just something worth looking into. She holds public office in New Zealand. The article gives no references as such, but following up one of its external links I confirm that her own official web site caller her a "transsexual and former sex-worker". It doesn't specifically say "prostitute", though (as does our article), and "sex-worker" can cover a lot of ground. Someone may want to look into this one in terms of improving citation. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Schaap (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Asking admin to look at this page - there are about 5 entries citing his book (note, the link is dead/invalid) that appear to be an attack. I know nothing about him, but hestiate to do rollbacks, as appears to be a protruded attack "war" going on between several users. SkierRMH 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I discussed this issue today with the editor who is adding them. I have found off-wikipedia verification that the quotes, though weird theology, are accurate quotes from the book in question. I would suggest, though, that the article should be expanded as it currently gives undue weight to the individual's sexual philosophy. This same user was adding essentially the same paragraph to other articles, for example, Independent Baptist and Eucharist. I have explained to him that WP:NPOV says that we should not give undue weight to minority viewpoints and he has read the policy and agreed. BigDT 04:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mwai Kibaki (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Mwai Kibaki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has already been listed here but received no response. An anonymous user 160.83.64.83 (talk • contribs), Patch77 (talk • contribs) and various other IP addresses (possibly all the same person, but that doesn't really matter) have been claiming that the article is biased against its subject and have been repeatedly removing content from it. I don't think that it is and neither do various other editors who have reverted. There was some discussion early on in the process, but that has now ended with neither party managing to persuade the other. All that is happening now is one paragraph (reporting on recent media revelations of a secnd wife, I think in a NPOV manner) being repeatedly removed and then reverted. The user has been warned but I'd like someone else to take a look at it to make sure I'm not completely wrong here. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 14:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: An editor is now discussing the possibility of taking legal action over the article. --Cherry blossom tree 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Legal threats are to be reported on WP:ANI for immediate action. (→Netscott) 17:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I've pointed out the policy and suggested dispute resolution. I'll wait to see what the response is before looking for any immediate action. --Cherry blossom tree 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Just had a look at this: The mention of the "second wife rumour" is suitably sourced and is not, in my opinion, given undue weight. — Matt Crypto 18:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. --Cherry blossom tree 22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Richards (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Depending on the edit of the moment, the section dealing with Richards' recent onstage racist remarks is longer than the rest of the article, completely ignoring concerns about "undue weight", as well as often being copyright-violation cut-and-pastes of the entire transcript. I recommend the article be completely locked until the throng of editors gleefully eager to overdetail every single nuance of this issue calm down. wikipediatrix 01:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is definitely suffering from recentism. I wouldn't be quick to lock it up though. That said some extra eyes on it in light of BLP would do much good. (→Netscott) 02:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Richards (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 2

Possible POV - if I've interpreted that correctly. I don't know if the people reading this are familiar with the Richards' controversy going on right now. Today (Wednesday), Richards hired a publicist who announced that Richards is Jewish after Richards was accused of making anti-Semitic comments as well as racist ones. On the other hand, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles wrote an article specifically on that Richards is not Jewish. Since this is becoming frequently reported on in the media, I added that Richards' publicist says he is, and the Journal says he isn't. According to our article on the Jewish Journal, it's a reliable source, yet an editor claims it is not and keeps removing the bit about what the Journal said, leaving only what the publicist said. I think it's a clear case of conflicting cases and both should be put it in (i.e. this version). Am I right or does anyone have an opinion on the matter? Mad Jack 08:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moshe Levinger (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Moshe Levinger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Levinger only sat 2 months in jail and therefore IMO shouldn't be in the category Category:Israeli criminals. He also had a plea bargain only and on negligence, which lacks the mens rea IMO. Too much undue weight too on the incident - the person is known as a rabbi, teacher, pioneer, politican and many more aspects in life. Amoruso 20:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 20:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jello Biafra (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

We have something on our hands that appears to be a legal threat. This has sat unremarked for several days, I just noticed it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S. M. Stirling (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

A couple of anonymous users and a newly-created account keep re-adding blatantly libelous material to this science-fiction author's biography, claiming that he expressed 'virulent hatred' of Muslims under an alleged Internet pseudonym, and that 'many readers' believe he likes to 'gratuitously insult' Muslims in his books (among other derogatory accusations). Needless to say, there is no sourcing for any of these allegations. I'm requesting that a few people add this low-traffic page to their watch list to help. - Merzbow 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

as the person libelled by user:Merzbow above, I feel it appropriate to respond that the comments were posted in a section entitled "Criticism" which is wholly appropriate. I editted them a short time ago so as to express a more neutral POV. As these are major criticisms of Stirling's work that reccur frequently, they are appropriate for a section titled criticism, IMHO. Unless these biographies are meant to be panegyrics or press releases? If Merzbow continues his libels against myself and his vandalism of this page, I would request he be banned from further tampering and libel. --Stampcollector 00:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
None of these criticisms are sourced. Thus removal is appropriate. Libel against you is not as big a concern here as libel against Stirling. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 02:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your request to ban Merzbow, keep re-adding unsourced libelous statements and you will be banned. Policy is very clear on this. Read WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Allcriticisms of Stirling have been removed. Is your intention to only have puff pieces?--Stampcollector 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed all unsourced potentially libelous statements. Do you know why? If not, please follow the links above. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 02:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Pinker (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Steven Pinker contains lots of personal information which is irrelevant to the article. While this material is sourced, it repeatedly mentions his multiple ex-wives names as well as the names and occupations of other family members. This seems like a violation of WP:BIO: in favor of privacy and simply poor judgement, and poor taste. WP is not a gossip magazine. Various users (at least 3) have tried to remove this information yet user Mikkerprikker insists on adding it again, accusing the users of vandalism. KAdler 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sathya Sai Baba (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Alleged by user:SSS108 violation of prescribed writing style. Other editor (user:Andries) prefers to stay close to the source to avoid inaccuracies and to avoid omitting relevant information. Here is the diff [13] Andries 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, violation of WP:BLP#Writing_style. Andries is the former webmaster for the largest Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba website on the internet and is trying to make the Sathya Sai Baba article into an "expose", not an encyclopedic article. SSS108 talk-email 07:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. You are removing well-sourced information that is relevant to the person's notability. I will revert. Andries 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
May be the following rewording is acceptable to all parties
The journalist Sacha Kester wrote in 2003 an article in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant about spiritual seekers who go to India to find a guru. In that article Kester wrote that SSB is a good example of a guru who is a swindler. Kester further wrote in the article that "the sorrow of those who after years of devotion saw through his deception is indescribable. The jewels and watches that he materializes are hidden in his chair. Followers who make large donation are given preferential treatment. He advises ill people not to take their medicine." She further wrote that he "invites good looking young boys for a private interview" and explicitly described SSB's sexual habits with these boys. (source de Volkskrant 7 Jan. 2003 Ticket naar Nirvana/Ticket to Nirvana)
Andries 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Dalrymple (historian) (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

In repose to OTRS complaints, I've three times removed sections from this article for WP:BLP reasons. It is pretty clear that editors with agendas are editing this page in partisan ways. After the first removal, I warned one user, and when he reinserted basically the same material, we had this conversation [14]. When the section was replaced as a 'from the critics' title, bt another users, I protected the article. I have no personal knowledge of, or interest in, the subject, so if anyone wants to try wo work this our with the parties I'd be obliged.--Docg 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Merchant (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Natalie Merchant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - long lasting (6-7 months) edit war. The article informs the name of the artist's husband as well as her children, citing an interview, but an anonymous IP continues reverting. As the IP modifies the article once or twice per day (games with the system?) it is not possible to block it for long periods. -- ReyBrujo 19:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desmond Tutu (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Desmond Tutu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - there are some citations at the end of this page which appear to be distortions of Tutu's actual comments, and which portray him in an unfair light. Please review my comments on the talk page ("more questions for CJ" and "more comments for CJ"). I'm half-inclined to delete the contentious references myself, except that I've already made three reverts on the page today. CJCurrie 03:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Yzerman (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Steve Yzerman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - someone keeps adding "Tsakmakas" to Yzerman's name at the top of the article. The source of the edits appears to come from different IP addresses. I have removed Tsakmakas three times already, and each time it is added back. There is no verifiable source to show that Tsakmakas is indeed part of Yzerman's name. If someone can come up with a credible source that says his full name includes Tsakmakas I will of course not edit it out any longer. However, as a 20+ year fan of Yzerman's, I have yet to see that name mentioned anywhere. This Wiki article is the first I've seen it. I am concerned this is going to develop into an edit war and would like it settled before it does. AuntieNancy19 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leonid Nevzlin (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Leonid Nevzlin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs): I suspect that what is here is essentially accurate, so someone may want to improve sourcing rather than remove material, but blind external link from our text to a page on the subscription site of the Moscow Times is a pretty weak citation for an accusation of criminality. - Jmabel | Talk 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

this should be a good enough source for the allegations, although it doesn't report the later extradition request. Morwen - Talk 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viktor Kožený (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

As above, I don't doubt that what's here is true, but I don't like it either. Because of that, however, I don't want to just wipe it out and say "...was a Czech", or something. Help? 68.39.174.238 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rush Limbaugh (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Rush Limbaugh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) User:Caper13 and User:Dual Freq are repeatedly editing sourced sections that they admit they have not read the sources for. As can be expected, the sections now attribute misinformation to sources that those sources do not say. For example, they have removed information sourced to the Boston Globe, and then inserted their own points of view in its place to make it appear that the Boston Globe is reporting their own opinions. This seems grossly unfair to any reader who would actually come here looking for accurate information, let alone to the public figure and the newspaper. My attempts to remove such misinformation and misattribution have been greeted with threats of blocking over 3RR rules. They are also removing any sourced information that does not conform to their point of view, claiming that the sole purpose of the article is document "achievements" and any source they don't like (including prominent critics like Richard Roeper) are so biased that their reporting of basic facts can't be used. WillyWonty 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gérard Royal (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Brother of a French presidential candidat, Ségolène Royal. It is written that he is an "accused terrorist bomber". Is it a libel ? 193.56.37.1 13:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As the article explains, his brother has claimed he admitted to planting the bombs in the Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. This claim is made in a reliable source which we mention. This is widely considered a terrorist attack in New Zealand, and was apparently even labelled as such by France. As such, accused terrorist bomber is probably a fair label Nil Einne 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)~
There has been no justice action or indictement whatsoever, in France, New Zealand or anywhere else, therefore the term "accused" is libelous, you just have unsourced hearsay.Hektor 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't need an indiciment to be accused of something. As per the discussion in the talk page, I feel the current wording is more informative so won't be chaning it but this doesn't mean I think it was wrong to label him an accused terrorist. If someone has been accused by a reliable source of commiting a crime, by definition he is accused of the crime. In this case, there is no doubt he has been accused by his brother of being the bomber. There is little doubt that the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior is considered a terrorist attack. Hence someone accused of being involved in it, would be an accused terrorist. You are perhaps confusing the difference between the legal term (I believe accused has a specific meaning in the legal sense) and the word. You might want to take a look at other articles like Category:Journalists accused of fabrication or plagiarism and Category:Wrongly accused terrorism suspects. In many of these cases, AFAIK no indicement or legal proceedings were ever carried out. In the latter for example, in many cases, these people were never prosecuted or indicited, simply held at Guantanomo and then released Nil Einne 11:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the goal of this policy is to protect wikipedia. The way the article is written, I think Royal could sue wikipedia with good chances of success. Hektor 13:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Nimmo (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Delicious edits like this one. "Multiple" users repeatedly restore that version, frequently using the summary "reverse vandalism". 130.214.17.20 14:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Have reverted, left note. Morwen - Talk 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The BLP-violating version was reverted to again by the person I left a note to, with no attempt at explanation. I have reverted. Can people please keep an eye on this? Morwen - Talk 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I reinforced your note to the user. It's on my watchlist now. That user just registered a few days ago, and has only edited that article, all edits being of the same nature. Crockspot 00:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is likely that User:Kevin9, User:Janissary3 and User:Randicity are all the same people. Semi-protection doesn't seem to be an option. Does this need full protection yet? Morwen - Talk 09:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Janissary3 reverted again, after my final warning. He is now indef blocked. Morwen - Talk 13:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have had to protect this page. Morwen - Talk 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Good call. Maybe do a chkuser and mark all the socks too. Crockspot 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny DeVito (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

This article could use some extra eyes for the next week or so. He appeared on The View today in supposedly an inebriated state and now anon IPs are starting to have a field day. (→Netscott) 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morris R. Jeppson (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

It's certainly good to ask other editors to get involved, but 3RR doesn't apply in the case of reverting unsourced negative information. (Nor in the case of clear vandalism, which this is not, but I add for the sake of completeness.) John Broughton | Talk 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William A. Dembski (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

I responded to this complaint, which was removed from this board. There appears to be legitimate concern about sourcing and relevance. A claim is being made that is sourced by blogs, and the blogs are being considered reliable, since they are "science blogs". Yet the material being sourced is your average run-of-the-mill blog ranting, not scientific information. I don't think this is proper, and I would like some others from this group to check it out and comment at Talk:William A. Dembski#BLP Noticeboard response. There is also a key issue of relevance, since the comments were not posted by the subject of the article, but by a moderator at his blog at a different blog, if I'm following right. Crockspot 16:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoring complaint. JoshuaZ makes a false assertion that it is libelious. The user only says it is "potentially libelious" DLH 21:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a poorly sourced quote (personal blogs quoting an obscure personal blog) of one of the moderators (DaveScot) of Dembski's blog. First of all why is a moderator of Dembski's blog being quoted in Dembski's autobiography when the moderator's quote wasn't even on Dembski's blog to begin with and did not represent any opinion of Dembski? Secondly, why are personal blogs quoting another personal blog allowed as a source? No one can even verify that the DaveScot moderating Dembski's blog is the same DaveScot who commented on the other blog. Anyone can use any name they want for a handle on blogspot blogs. It's the most poorly sourced quote I've ever seen on Wiki and it is a potentially libelous quote. The editor doing the insertion (FeloniusMonk) is adamantly opposed to removing it even though it violates Wiki rules of reliable sources and especially the rule about immediately removing potentially libelous material in living person biographies. 72.183.101.183 08:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Now the editors are even removing my comments from the talk page to censor notification of their egregious guideline violations. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_A._Dembski&action=history 72.183.101.183 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Update 2: Now editor JosuahZ has blocked my usual IP and removed the above update so I can't even go through the BLP complaint procedure. How am I expected to proceed under these circumstances? 66.61.147.69 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed most of the paragraph relating to DaveScot, and there appears to be agreement on the talk page that my justification for doing so is proper. Crockspot 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Feh. Spoke too soon. There is a little reverting going on, but an admin/regular editor to the article is backing me up. Crockspot 21:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The reverting has halted, but I'm getting quite a bit if pressure. Feel free to pipe in... Crockspot 02:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oprah Winfrey (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

We’re having serious problem on the Oprah Winfrey board with editor user:David Fuchs. He seems determined to add the following libelous information about Oprah Winfrey:

Others see Oprah as too powerful, wielding too much influence in everything from what people wear to what people buy: appearing on her show can bring greater financial success to the item, as evidenced by several books such as A Million Little Pieces (see Oprah Book Club above). Others are disgusted that Oprah is considered for a Nobel Peace Price when she has done little but thrown "excess money at poor people." These factors and others have led to several anti-Oprah sites appearing.[2][3]

It’d be one thing if he had notable sources he could quote for his anti-Oprah rant, but instead all he provides for sources are anonymous anti-Oprah web pages (which he may have created himself & is trying to use wikipedia to advertise) and a student article. It’s my understanding that the references one is required to cite in order to justify trashing a living person should be much higher. I cite the following from Wikipedia’s living person policy:

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Can someone please explain to him that this sort of thing is libelous and keep him away from this article. Timelist 20:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] André Boisclair (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

An anonymous user (IP=86.133.143.98 (talk • contribs)) keeps reverting the page to a previous version which contains libelous material. It also contains factual inaccuracies. I have discussed with the user on the Discussion page. However, he is absolutely certain that he is right. He is also obviously polarized against the political party (Parti Québécois) of which André Boisclair is the leader; thus, this user cannot provide a NPOV on the subject, and it shows. He has also reverted my latest version THREE TIMES, arguing that everything that he wrote is factually correct. His version also contains various typos. It also refers to an external article in the Globe and Mail; however, this article is editorial in nature, and contains information that had been later disproved. Be careful with this user, because he also tends to freely edit his previous entries on the discussion page. By the way, I have warned André Boisclair's politial team of the currently libelous article. Thanks. -- Hugo Dufort 05:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted his latest edit back to your version. Some of the negative info he put in the article was not sourced at all, let alone reliabley sourced. Timelist 06:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will keep updating the article, as the negative content still seems to outweight Mr Boisclair's achievements as an environment minister in the 1990s, and as a party leader in the 2000s. We must make sure we keep a NPOV and we also need to be respectful; this biography is still quite sketchy. -- Hugo Dufort 07:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The same user (IP=86.133.143.98 (talk • contribs)) has reverted the whole article on André Boisclair AGAIN. THIS MUST STOP. He also seems to be going on a crusade against the Cégep network of colleges (which he insists on calling "secondary schools"), as he is editing occurrences of this term in other biographies. See for instance Gilles Duceppe. -- Hugo Dufort 20:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Current content of the biography page:
- Boisclair being called a "party animal in Quebec City's night-life scene", which is unacceptable vocabulary in a Wikipedia article and could be considered libel (note: the fact that this statement was taken from a newpaper's editorial doesn't justify its presence in Wikipedia)
- emphasis on the fact (?) that Boisclair is a drop-out and doesn't have an undergraduate degree (a note about his Master's degree is buried further down on the page)
- focus on allegations (with link to editorial/opinion texts)
- lenghty discussions about purported scandals
- extensive coverage of criminal accusations against a member of Boisclair's team, despite the fact that Boisclair was never accusated ("guilty by association?" our anonymous wikipedian says so in the Discussion page)
- misleading entry about Boisclair being the leader of a "secondary school" students movement (it was at COLLEGE level)
- misleading entry about Boisclair "resigning" right after a financial scandal (in fact, he resigned because he wanted to takes a Master's degree course; the scandal happened years later)

What is missing from the biography page:
- anything about André Boisclair's achievements as a Minister of Environment
- a respectful coverage of André Boisclair's political life

THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS FILLED WITH LIBEL.

This page has been built by somebody who publicly states that he dislikes André Boisclair and his political party. The man who wrote the page, and who personally controls the content, refuses any improvement, correction, or opinion that is contrary to his own, despite the fact that the new content I tried to add has reliable references. Instead of accepting the changes, the anonymous user simply REVERTS the whole page (he's done this at least FOUR TIMES with my changes) and then cherry-picks some minor modifications. -- Hugo Dufort 04:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced biographies of long-standing

{{unreferenced}} and a 'bot now classify unsourced articles by date. There are a significant number of biographies, including biographies of living persons, that have lacked sources for a year, now. I've ready found one article that has, sans sources, stated that someone is a war criminal for a year. Editors interested in addressing this should see Category:Articles lacking sources by month and its sub-categories. Uncle G 18:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an outrage. Even without knowing who the person is, I am disgusted that someone can be called a war criminal on wikipedia without a damn good source to back it up. There is far too much negative POV that gets into the bios of living people. Timelist 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Brault (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

This article about a Canadian political scandal cited only other Wikipedia articles in stating that he had committed crimes and been convicted. I blanked all but the initial sentence, on the theory this constituted "poor sourcing" and because I could not access all the refs in the related articles Charles Guité and Sponsorship scandal to verify the details about this individual. Is that the correct course? Sponsorship scandal has a great number of refs, Charles Guité only has 2 and Jean Brault had none. Can an article about crimes by a living person rely on references in another article? How about when the link is dead like the one in Charles Guité about his conviction? Edison 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No of course not. When it comes to putting negative information into the biographies of living persons, references must meet the highest standards of reliability to avoid liability. What you are describing is an outrage. Timelist 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David A. Yeagley (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

We could use some help at David A. Yeagley, where at least two anon IPs have repeatedly blanked the entire article and substitute a "hatchet job" bio containing negative unsourced statements. It's been going on for some time now and has escalated to the point of edit warring. I have left messages on the discussion pages of the anons, but in vain; they refuse to use "discussion" or edit in good faith without blanking the original text.

The offending editors are 64.238.136.39 and 216.177.172.11, with very similar edits having also been made by User:Brent Michael Davids, User:Verity Truth, and 162.83.249.112. An IP check is probably in order due to possible sock puppet activity to avoid 3RR or repercussions on the registered user names.

Thanks in advance for your help, Badagnani 02:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

129.115.102.13 has just joined in with the same behavior. Badagnani 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Griffin (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Nick Griffin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article contains libelous allegations of homosexuality/bisexuality. The editor of these allegations is extremely hostile to Nick Griffin and is obviously using this article to score political points rather than to make a contribution to a decent biography. I believe that speculations about his sexuality are in breach of Wikipedia policy but I also object to the prominence given to these allegations. The subject is a politician recently involved in high-profile court cases and elections but more prominence is given to the speculations about his sexuality than to either the court cases or the elections. (unsigned)

I have paired this section down.[15]. It was a hatchet job full of weasel words. 1) the fact he's married with kids isn't relevant to his dislike for homosexuality or the allegations - that's just inviting people to make a morel judgement. 2) 'Allegedly provoked' - is pure speculation 3) yahoo groups is not a reliable source 4) 'so far has not taken up the invitation to sue him' - weasel words intended to suggest he's lying 5) 'According to some other sources, for example ' - NO one example will not do for 'some' 5) the allegation that Webster's sexuality was well known is inviting a conclusion by the reader. That again is weasel. Unless a relaibel source has drawn that conclusion, and we can report it, we should not infer it.
I fully expect to be reverted - so please do watch.--Docg 20:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danielle Steel (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Danielle Steel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Yesterday, famous gossip columnist Liz Smith presented Danielle Steel with information in Danielle Steel that appears to be outrageous. However, the unfootnoted information has been there since September 2005 and Danielle Steel did not object to the information. See link. Thus, I did not delete the information. I put citation needed on the more outrageous facts and thought I would pass it on to the experts to decide what to do. Please review. Thanks.-- Jreferee 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't all that information be removed per Jimbo's comments? -- ReyBrujo 13:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yikes! I removed any unsourced negative information, and also some of the excess personal details. Crockspot 19:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Steel didn't object to it doesn't mean it's okay to keep. She may just not think much of wikipedia or whatever. It is up to us to keep wikipedia to a standard we expect Nil Einne 12:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Milton (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Anne Milton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). A constituent, Tim Ireland, has an attack blog on Milton. This has been repeatedly reinserted and edit-warred over. As it stands there is a short para on coverage of the Ireland dispute in the press (fine by me) but the blog itself keeps creepong back in (not fine, per WP:EL, links to avoid). I have removed the link. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Quest (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

"His [sic] one of the most annoying reporters on TV & CNN". Perhaps - but this does not belong here. 85.124.36.195 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the text which essentially amounted to vandalism. Anon, feel free to edit away when you see problems like that... (→Netscott) 06:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harlan Ellison (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

I tried removing the offending material because the source is from a work of fiction, and there is considerable doubt as to whether the event actually took place. Other editors have also tried removing the text for the same reason. Yonmei continues to insert the libelous account, which is undoubtedly a personal attack on the biographical subject. The confusion lies in that Harlan touts this story as being true, as often fiction writers are want to do.

The source for the libelous account is from the story SCENES FROM THE REAL WORLD: I, THE 3 MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN LIFE, which appeared in a collection of fiction from STALKING THE NIGHTMARE copyright © 1982 The Kilimanjaro Corporation. From the dusk jacket of that book: ".... For the first time the author has embodied his belief that fantasy and reality have switched places in our time by including four essays he calls SCENES FROM THE REAL WORLD...." From Stephen King foreword from the same book: ".... one can almost see 'The 3 Most Important Things in Life' as a stand-up comedy routine (it's a job, by the way, that Harlan knows, having done it for a while in his flaming youth)...."

If we cannot be sure the events took place from a likely work of fiction, then how can we include this fictional anecdote as fact? The entire entry should be removed. 70.81.7.65 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jill St. John (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Jill St. John is listed under American Scientologists, but I cannot find any evidence to support this.

[edit] Afshar experiment (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

  • Afshar experiment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Dispute, raging for several years, between Professor Afshar and various uncredentialed critics. Many of the statements can be considered to be libelous (and Prof Afshar takes them as such). The problem statements tend to be rather technical, but are along the lines of "Everyone knows that X=Y" with the implication of "Only someone incompetent would think otherwise". I've attempted to informally arbitrate over the years, but its not working. Some sort of banning/protection seems called for. // linas 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pharrell (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

The page on Pharrell williams says he "plays guitar". This is not true, as his production partner Chad Hugo had to learn the guitar for their album "Fly or Die" specifically because neither of them could play the guitar. They previously used synths in place of guitar also for these reasons. I have tried removing this 3 times, but it gets automatically added back. The statement contains no source or reference anyway. He along with many others may at some point have played a couple of notes on a guitar (in the fashion that anyone could) to add to a backing beat, but he certainly doesn't play the guitar, and there is seemingly no evidence to support this. I however can find evidence to support what I've said above.

[edit] Rick Ross (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

An anon contributor is removing whole sections of this article that are properly sourced on the basis that the material removed is too critical. Could some non-involved editors advise this user? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I presume you mean Rick Ross (consultant) since this is the one you appear involved in. Nil Einne 11:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Voiculescu (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

User:Biruitorul called attention to it as a problem at Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board (I believe he has not worked on this article himself); looks to me like it has big BLP issues. Some of them might be solved by citation. - Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete McCloskey (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

This edit at least pushes the boundary. - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Michael Langan (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

The article is currently locked. However, there is a lot of material that is contentious, defamatory and potentially libellous on the talk page here. I tried to remove this edit from a newly created account twice, but it's been replaced by administrators who have shown occasional derision and bias toward the subject of the article and some of the editors who have edited out contentious content. I am a member of the bio Wikiproject, but am still not sure if I am communicating this important matter at the right location. Advice and help will be greatly appreciated! TIA --DrL 13:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how being called a "crank" is other than the opinion of the editor. It's clearly not suitable in article-space (unless sourced, possibly to Kevin Langan), but I don't see a violation in the removed text. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Arthur, you have recused yourself from dealings with this article in the past and it might be prudent to do so now. I don't know who "Kevin Langan" is but this seems to be a harassing comment on your part. It might be best to let a neutral admin make a call here. --DrL 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Before anyone wastes too much time investigating DrL's claims here, please be aware that the arbcom has ruled at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#Remedies that DrL and Asmodeus are both banned from editing on this topic due to aggressive and tendentious editing to inflate Langan's status. Any claims made here by these editors should be viewed in this light. FeloniousMonk 08:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Stilwell

Richard Stilwell this page gives no references whatsoever and I was brought to his page from a completely unrelated page on the Battle of Hamburger Hill, it was supposed to be on Lieutenant General Richard Stilwell who commanded the battle.--Colin 8 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue; it's simply a case of two article topics with the same name that didn't get disambiguated. Bearcat 19:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraneditor (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

I would like to file a complaint against the editor DMOSS. He obviously follows a hidden agenda in distorting the image of Alireza Jafarzadeh who is a major opponent of the Iranian regime. DMOSS very blatantly adds libel information about Jafarzadeh. His main source is the Iran Interlink site. This site belongs to the Iranian government’s Information Ministry. Along with a number of other websites, Iran Interlink’s only objective is to tarnish Iranian opposition figures and spread misinformation about them. This site is neither reliable nor unbiased. To get more information on it, please check: http://www.iranterror.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=47

http://www.iran-interlink.info/

http://www.iranterrorism.info/

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2160

DMOSS also removes any additions to Jafarzadeh’s bio that is not in line with his agenda of tarnishing his image. If you follow his other edits in wikipedia, you will notice a scheme to spread misinformation about opponents of the Iranian regime. He is in no way a fair and unbiased editor and should not be permitted to continue his smear campaign.

[edit] Richard Littlejohn (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

I edited this article to remove a large number of unsourced controversial statements, which are plainly unacceptable under WP:BLP. However a number of users have insisted on reverting these edits, with one user describing them as a "whitewash". 217.34.39.123 13:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Much of what is being disputed is sourced and acceptable under WP:BLP, much of it is unsourced but not particularly negative, and some of it looks like attempts to build up 'guilt by association'. Needs more thorough investigation. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ilan Pappé (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Several new users, including User:RanceRol, User:RanceRot, and User:Greenran have been adding defamatory remarks to this article. They are clearly sockpuppets for banned User:Fumigate and his many other banned sockpuppets -- see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check#Fumigate and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Szamuels. When one article is protected, this vandal apparently seeks another place to add his defamatory comments about both the subject of the article, and Roland Rance. Is there any way to prevent this continued harrassment and vandalism? RolandR 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. Edward Anderson (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

This article has been created by Ken Avidor. Ken Avidor is a known opponent (with few scruples) of Dr. Anderson's lifelong goals. I scanned the article and found at least one case of taking a quote out of context. The article focuses on local Minneapolis politics, which is not necessarily appropriate to a discussion of Dr. Anderson's achievements. In order to prevent a minor recurrence of the Siegenthaler incident I suggest a rigorous review of this article. Bob 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (moved from WP:AN, Patstuarttalk|edits 05:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

I saw this while lurking AN/I, and took a look. Not only does the article suffer from a number of mis- or non-contextualized ironic statements, which standing alone present the appearance of a man who changes his opinion on his life's work with the wind, but it also features a large amount of redundant linking, which initially served to look like there was a LOT of opposition to his ideas. I took a whack at cutting the fat, and contetualizing some of it, but one quote absolutely had to go. I have NEVER heard of this guy before, but it's clean there's a LOT of POV-pushing going on at that article. ThuranX 05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to block someone for willful POV pushing by creating an article about their enemy? I know there was the famous case where Wikipedia had to block the whole House and Senate because people kept on defacing their opponents' pages. Patstuarttalk|edits 06:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a long (one year) history with Ken Avidor, both here (see Talk:Personal rapid transit/Avidor) and off-wiki. He is virulently against PRT, and he has ridiculed PRT proponents on his web pages and blogs ([18] [19]). He commonly refers to Anderson as a "PRTista" and the "wacky professor". His anti-PRT campaign is so famous and widespread among the PRT community that there are two blogs devoted to debunking Avidor's claims ([20] [21] - this one created by yours truly).
Having said all that, I've read the Anderson article and, compared to Avidor's typical work, it's actually not too bad. His opinions on this topic are so extreme that I honestly believe that this article is about as neutral as he is capable of producing on someone like Anderson. This is not to say the article is acceptable (ThuranX has already improved it significantly, and it still has a lot of issues), but rather, I don't think the POV pushing was necessarily "willful", or a sign of bad faith. I think it's entirely possible that this is his idea of neutral.
The question now is, will he fight changes to the article? He has already predicted (off-wiki) that "PRTistas (will) take a meat-axe to it...". So I think it would be best for those of us whom he views as proponents (User:Mr Grant, User:Dunning, and me) to avoid editing the article - maybe someone not associated with PRT can work on it instead? There's actually a lot of information there, and most of it seems pretty accurate, so it's really just a matter of toning it down.ATren 09:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Sarfati

I am following the procedure:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

The following in the article has been repeatedly reinserted.

I have to report it here, since the rule is being violated by two admins, FeloniousMonk and JoshuaZ, who have a strong ideological bias against the subject of the article, and are breaking this clear rule and the one against original research, and are hiding behind arbcom diktats to punish editors with opposing ideologies. How can we expect justice when it's admins who are guilty and heavy handed, unless we go above their heads?

He also accuses many origin of life researchers, such as David Bartel of MIT and Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute, of having a religious kind of faith,[19] [OK this is sourced, just provided for content]
although those scientists do not demonstrate any manifestation of religious faith. [This is not sourced]
He also misrepresents the work of ribozyme evolution. [This is is a blatantly POV accusation and unsourced] For example, he argued that the mutagenesis of those experiments employed high error rates, which would cause error catastrophe, but high mutation rates were needed in those experiments simply to reduce the amount of time it would take to satisfactorially mutate a population of ribozymes to a significant extent, as opposed to using normal PCR techniques.[20] This link is just an ibid, so refers to [19] which is Sarfati's own article, which would not support this critical paragraph. So this paragraph is unsourced and counts as original research as defined:
"Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. ... It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" Wikipedia:No original research. 58.162.2.122 15:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research?

I’m having a similar dispute on the biography of another living person, so I’d like to raise my questions here.

The first is that the transcripts from a criminal trial were published by a prominent local newspaper. Am I within Wikipedia’s rules in using those transcripts as sources, or is that considered original research?

My second question is illustrated by the following. One media report said the unidentified girl shown on the TV monitor in the courtroom was 11; a second report said she was 7. A third source said the monitor was positioned such that reporters couldn’t easily see it. There shouldn’t be any problem in including those three facts in the Wikipedia article as just stated (together with the sources). But I want to go one step further - just a small step - and point out that the third fact could EXPLAIN the discrepancy between the first two. (If the reporters couldn’t see the monitor clearly, then they couldn’t accurately estimate her age.) Now the third source doesn’t itself make this suggestion, so one COULD say that my suggestion is “original research”. But I would respond that it is merely PART of “collecting and organizing information” (see WP:NOR) - it’s a logical consequence of organizing the information - and is therefore permitted.196.15.168.40 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The main purpose behind the "no original research" policy is that you are not presenting your own theories or interpretations. In the first case, linking to the transcripts or citing them as a source is perfectly legitimate. In the second question, my opinion is that your new synthesis of the facts - the new conclusion that you draw - would constitute original research and would be inappropriate. BigDT 04:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
BigDT I think you forgot to mention that primary sources, such as court transcripts - must also have a secondary source in order to interpret them. Otherwise, it's very easy to misuse them. But please permit me to explain to you user 196.15.168.40. The article he is referring to is the David Westerfield article. He is a convicted child-killer. 196 has been trolling that article since March of 2006. 196 believes Westerfield was wrongfully convicted. At first, he stated he was here to correct the article and make it neutral. Well, all of that was done and yet he is still around. Thanks to him the article became the nicest article about a child-killer in all of wikipedia. 196 claims to "know a lot" yet he has never contributed to any article except the Westerfield one. When I bring that up to him, he claims that he doesn't have the time to contribute to other articles. However when he first came to wikipedia, to edit the Westerfield article, he was adding something new to it EVERY single day. So much so that an administrator was brought in to protect the article. Strange how he doesn't have the time now. Back then he had the time to contribute his bias and original research to the article. When he found out other users would thwart his efforts he toned down. 196 has made ALL efforts to make the article reflect Westerfield is innocent. Personally, I believe 196 is Westerfield's lawyers or knows somebody who knows the lawyers or are a relative of David Westerfield. A casual observer would not go through the lengths that he has made. For example, he is able to recite dates of testimony and who made them. Clearly the case is very close to his heart. So BigDT be careful what you tell this individual for he will surely find a way to abuse it. He has expressed contempt for the victims parents and blames them. If that's not enough he said deragotory things about the victim and her brothers. The victim is a 7 year old girl. To understand his bias go to the articles external link and go to link 8. Read the section he titled as "Guilty?"; he wrote the entire section. An administrator tagged the section as biased, but 196 conveniently saves the section without the tag. He cares nothing about wikipedia and has only remained here because wikipedia is available to anyone. Fighting for Justice 05:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to “Fighting for Justice”:

I posed two simple technical questions, and in reply you subject me to a long personal attack, only two sentences of which address those questions, and even that is wrong (just like the rest of your response). This shows the difference between you and other editors, like BigDT. Where does Wikipedia say that “primary sources ... must also have a secondary source in order to interpret them”? You removed important information from the Westerfield article even when I used secondary sources in addition to or instead of primary sources, so you are clearly just using this as an excuse.

You complain that, in the beginning, I added something new to the article “EVERY single day”. Those are the exact same words used by your predecessor, TripleH1976 - and it was he who asked an administrator to protect the article (something else you’ve got in common with him).

You speak as though it is BAD that I am “able to recite dates of testimony and who made them”. I’m not alone. This case generated considerable interest, resulting in vigorous debates including on internet discussion forums, which continued even long after the trial was over. Probably because the transcripts were published, MANY people were “able to recite dates of testimony and who made them”, even though they were not related to Westerfield or his lawyer. You - and Wikipedia - should be grateful that you have someone here who is actually KNOWLEDGEABLE about the case.

You believe the article is neutral. Let’s look at one current example. Westerfield was convicted of possessing child pornography. In fact, there is a WEALTH of evidence - most of it from law enforcement themselves - that he did NOT have any child porn. I added that evidence to the article, but you REMOVED it all (as did TripleH1976 before you). Yet you accuse ME of being biased! (So did he.) Quite apart from the Westerfield case, don’t you think the public would like to know what could happen to THEM, too? A zealous prosecutor could again override his own experts in his determination to obtain THEIR conviction.

I have been thoroughly disenchanted by this, my first experience of Wikipedia. I can see why it has a bad reputation. Just ONE determined vandal can effectively sabotage attempts to improve an article, and there’s NO guarantee that the administrators will intervene.196.15.168.40 05:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson Rockefeller

Despite repeated warnings user Tvoz has repeatedly violated the WP:Living rule regarding the Nelson Rockefeller entry. At the time of Rockefeller's death in 1979 there was much speculation, but no facts, regarding what happened. Tvoz had made multiple attempts to add salacious rumors to the effect there was a young women (he names her) involved, she had an adulterous relationship (this story follows details on his marriage), she helped cause his death from heart attack during sex, she had a motive for seeing him dead (named in his will), and she tried to cover up the episode and mislead police. There was no official report or criminal charge or lawsuit and no witnesses--it's all gossip--and it clearly violates our policy about negative statements and insinuations about living people (the women is in her mid 50s now). Rjensen 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The above was posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I originally recommended the user post it here, but I copied it myself after finding out the user has been blocked for 24 hours. Please note I am not endorsing the summary, there has been some discussion on the talk page which provides a different view Nil Einne 20:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
In my attempts at mediation, I have addressed these concerns on the article's talk page. However, I believe that Rjensen is not representing the case accurately. A quick flip through the history of this article confirms this: the user in question, Tvoz, has inserted citations from reliable sources to document the controversy that arose after Rockefeller's death. She has not made the claim that Rockefeller and Ms. Marshak were sexually involved, nor has she said that she had "motive". (The fact that Marshak was named as a beneficiary in Rockefeller's will shows only that they had some kind of relationship: it could very easily have been a platonic one.) Her edits have been to improve the neutrality of the information and to provide sources for the claims, and thus I do not believe that it is in any way a violation of WP:BLP. I will continue to monitor the situation. -- Merope 14:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen's comments above amount to a malicious personal attack on Tvoz, as she did none of the things described. Take a look at what Tvoz did add to the article: [22] (her subsequent edits have added even more references and refined the text). Nelson Rockefeller died under unusual circumstances, something that gained wide press coverage at the time (for example, it was the subject of a Saturday Night Live skit [see snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78kbelushi.phtml]). Note that although it was widely assumed that Rockefeller died during sex with Marshack (such as in this CBC editorial [23]), the Wikipedia article has never said so, and has followed an editorial line similar to that of Time magazine, among others ([24]), scrupulously adhering to WP:LIVING in regard to Marshack. Rjensen's sterile revert warring and willingness to throw wild accusations about show little understanding of consensus or Wikipedia's core policies, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. ProhibitOnions (T) 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sol Leshinsky (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Although there is no mention in his biographical article, this person is listed on at least two (2) pages as a Soviet Spy, presumably while being a U.S. government official. The person is still living and (as is the case for nearly everyone on these 2 pages) is presumed to be a Soviet Spy based on his inclusion in the 2 pages mentioned below, even though he was apparently never indicted for this behavior. There is no citation or source for his inclusion, even from texts that may have suggested his spying - which unless it is posted as he was suspected, with of course the citations and/or sources, this is openly and clearly libelous. The 2 pages mentioned are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secret_agents#Perlo_group (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Perlo#Perlo_spy_ring_members (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Additionally, it appears that one of the Wikipedia editors has posted a warning on the TALK page about adding slanderous material, implying that there have been previous attempts to libel or slander this person...

This should be removed immediately. In addition, these 2 pages wildly assert a number of other individuals as being spies without ANY supporting sources or citations. In fact, these 2 pages may be the most libelous pages on Wikipedia... Stevenmitchell 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Reid (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Sorry, I don't normally do any editing or revision on Wikipedia, so my format here is probably all wrong.

Today one article I saw positively scared me. It's on the pornstar Amy Reid. Someone has edited her article repeatedly and over a long period of time.I'll quote some of the choicer nuggets:

"She likes to claim she was born in Germany but is a liar"
"She also is a girl with low self esteem who was teased all of her life. Her IQ was proven to be very low."

But what scared me was the more personal, stalker/psycho level stuff:

"I currently did research on her and will be willing to expose how much of a phony person she is."
"She thinks nobody in her family knows who she is, but they will find out soon."

Something about they will find out soon made me decide to go the extra step and suggest that maybe the article should be locked, or in some way prevent that user from continuing their personal vendetta. It's scary, but a person might graduate up from just posting threats online to something worse - like how serial killers start out just torturing animals. Anyway, if something could be done, I think it would be wise. I've already gone ahead and reverted it to a more or less ok version.Aghostinthemachine 02:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)aghostinthemachine

  • I spotted the vandalism independently of your notice here and did some reverting myself. Hopefully whoever it is who's doing the vandalism will go away shortly... Tabercil 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Jeremy (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

This article contained many potentially libelous statements with no sources. I have removed everything but a single sentence so that properly sourced material can be added back. Frise 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clive Bull (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Helper1 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), a new account, is repeatedly inserting this edit, which among others claims that the subject (who is married) seduced a woman via his late-night talk show. The edit alludes to various podcasts which Helper1 has claimed are publicly available - I have asked for him to be more specific as to where to find them, and I don't believe that the current references to them are adequate verification - at best they are too vague. Helper1 continues to revert. The article has been a focal point for hoax vandalism in the past, and I would like some more eyes on this. I have tried a Google search and found nothing relevant on the web. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Mueller

A determined IP vandal has repeatedly, for several weeks, attacked this page, replacing the FBI director's bio with a description of a company unrelated to Mueller. Block IP edits? RickDC 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

When you revert a vandal, please consider placing an appropriate warning tag from Category:User warning templates on their talk page. That way, if they continue to vandalize from that IP, they can be blocked. It doesn't look like it has been frequent enough for protection ... fyi, the place to request that is WP:RFP. I have watchlisted the page so if I see anything, I will revert it, but if you remove vandalism here or anywhere else, please put one of the "test" tags on their page so that they can be blocked as appropriate. BigDT 00:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This book, published by Doubleday and written by Hoover Institute research fellow Peter Schweizer, contains chapters entitled things like, "Hillary Clinton — Greedy Speculator, Corporate Shrill, and Petty Tax Avoider" and "Ralph Nader — Bourgeois Materialist, Stock Manipulator, and Tyrannical Sweatshop Boss". Is listing these titles a violation of WP:BLP? // Lawyer2b 03:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, reporting "X said Y", if, in fact, X did say Y and either (a) X is a reliable source of information about Y or (b) your article is about X is ok from a BLP standpoint. But good grief ... this article needs help. It should not be giving WP:NPOV#undue weight to the author's claims and it really needs to cite SECONDARY sources of information about the book. BigDT 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The article is essentially a recapitulation of the book, with a lengthy quotations for most chapters (that is, for each liberal person being attacked by the author). For example, the section (in the Wikipedia article) that discusses the book chapter on Barbara Steisand is over 500 words long. It contains sentences like Although she claims that the working men and women of America deserve higher wages, her production company, Barwood Films, usually films in Canada, where she can pay lower wages and receive tax breaks that she cannot get in the United States.
I don't think that the article about the book could possibly be considered NPOV unless it summarized each chapter in three sentences or so; what's there is way too much like mini-articles that present only one point of view (the author's). John Broughton | Talk 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
An article about a book should be primarily based on secondary sources. It should talk about the impact of the book, about what people have written about the book. It should not be an opportunity to present the POV of the author without balance/context, and it should not violate content guidelines. Guettarda 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Orr

Would someone mind checking this out? I've read a reasonably reputable synopsis of this dude, so can't bring myself to remove stuff I know is accurate, but I suspect it is in a poor state. If not, let me know so I can stop worrying. Thanx 68.39.174.238 06:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (PS. I don't have on hand the source I'm referring to, so I can't use it to source this... ARGH!)

[edit] Periyar Ramasami(history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]==

It is potentially libellous allegations without any any citations which I have asked for.The wording are not encyclopedic. 1: Periyar being likened to Hitler is potentially libellous as Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths whereas Periyar was not guilty of even one.Further no evidence or citation is given this comment.Periyar turned the offer to become the head of the Madras Presidency in 1939 after the Congress quit but he turned it down now to compare Hitler is wrong.

2:Brahmins:comments like The population of Brahmins in Tamil Nadu, which was about 10% in the 1920s, is today less than 3% as a result of persecution by EVR and his followers are strange as not even a Single Brahmin has been killed in the entire Dravidan movement. Further Rajaji,Jayalaitha and Janaki who were Chief Minsiters were Brahmins and ruled Tamil Nadu longer than any other single community and these statements are not backed by citations or evidence which are required.Jayalalitha is the head of a Dravidan Party

3: And the wording should be encyclopedic none emotional and contraversial lines like Within a span of 20 years, the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu, who had been living there for more than 2000 years, were turned into alien immigrants by the DK's propaganda. The speeches called for the elimination of Brahmins from Tamil Nadu, and the enslavement of Brahmin women. The speeches harkened back to an ancient Tamil glory, similar to Hitler's revival of ancient Germanic culture are not abcked by citations or Evidence

4:Further some one blanked His Childhood and Education.Even today there was mass deletion by 192.223.243.6 which was reverted 5:Only 1 name needs to be used either Periyar or EVR not 2 creates confusion to readers particularly foriegners.Periyar is how he is known.Tamil Nadu Government refers to him as Periyar.http://www.tn.gov.in/government.htm.He is refered as Periyar in Tamil Nadu Government. Periyar University is called named after him and Also, convention suggests that the most common name be used as far as possible in the text of the article Vandalism is done by 80.195.10.170 who vandalised the page 3 times .Harlowraman 10:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place for disputes about deceased persons. Please following Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Andries 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lyndon LaRouche (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] and related articles

These articles are being used to showcase the theories of three minor critics, Chip Berlet, Dennis King, and Tim Wohlforth. These three all have similar views, which are esoteric and out of the mainstream. It would be proper to devote perhaps one paragraph to their shared theories. However, two of them are editors at Wikipedia: Cberlet (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and Dking (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), and they are very aggressive about promoting themselves and their viewpoints in these articles, and apparently in other articles as well. I believe that some of their allegations may be libellous, but because they have been published (or in some cases self-published) it is argued that they must be included in the articles. They also have friends at Wikipedia who support them (as seen elsewhere on this page.) I think at the very least there are violations of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. --Tsunami Butler 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

These three all have similar views, which are esoteric and out of the mainstream. Both Cberlet and Dking are published authors, based on their user pages (and following a link); I suspect they can recognize libel when the see it, before they put it in writing. And it's pretty clear that Cberlet and Dking think that LaRouche is, well, to put it mildly, a bit unusual. Which would tend to make their opinions on that matter the mainstream view, actually.
It would help if you provided some diffs here (or even specific wording that bothers you), rather than broad generalities. Details will give other editors a much better idea of what you consider "esoteric" and what you think might be "libellous". (As far as undue weight, that's really a matter for talk/discussion pages of articles, unless an edit war breaks out.) John Broughton | Talk 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, these three authors allege that LaRouche is a fascist and that he is in favor or some sort of totalitarian state. I consider this possibly libelous because LaRouche has campaigned for over 35 years against fascism. These three make insinuations, without offering evidence beyond a technique of "decoding" where Dennis King, for example, says that photographs of galaxies that appear in LaRouche-affiliated science publications remind him of swastikas. Wohlforth equates support for government regulation of the economy a la FDR with support for a totalitarian state.
LaRouche has mainstream critics, of course, but they generally criticize him for being a conspiracy theorist, and do not accuse him of conspiring to bring about dictatorship or, as Dennis King does, having a "dream of world conquest." I think that one would have to draw the conclusion that King, Berlet and Wohlforth are themselves conspiracy theorists, and their ideas might deserve some mention, but not a central place in a biographical article. --Tsunami Butler 22:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheri DiNovo (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

A series of anonymous IPs, which all resolve to the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre in Queensland, Australia, has repeatedly inserted unsourced allegations that DiNovo, a Canadian politician, was involved in a bank fraud scam in 1992, was saved from prison only by agreeing to act as an RCMP informant, and has misrepresented other elements of her biography. Edit summaries have included inflammatory allegations that a "legion of NDP attack queers" is conspiring to protect DiNovo by burying this information; one of them, charmingly, directly addressed me as "Bearcunt". In the most recent edit, this mythical legion of NDP attack queers even found its way into the article itself.

This has happened six times now. I have tried addressing the matter of BLP policy on several prior occasions, but each time the allegations simply resurface again, posted by a different IP number that still resolves to the same institution. I expect that since they're posting anonymously, the person in question isn't even seeing comments posted to prior IP talk pages. I even tried at one point deleting and recreating the article to remove this claim from the edit history entirely, but as the matter has resurfaced again I've restored the deleted edits so they can be reviewed here. I've even tried searching both Google and the Toronto Star news database to investigate the verifiability of the claims, but whodathunkit? Not a single verifiable source to be had.

Since this happens at completely unpredictable intervals, I'd like a few people to keep it watchlisted just in case this happens again at a time when neither myself nor CJCurrie (the other user who's done reverts on this) are online. And if anybody has any other advice on how we can make this stop, I'm all ears. Bearcat 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Westerfield (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Note: the above had previously been archived. Since there is more interest in it, I have unarchived it. BigDT 04:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to "Fighting for Justice" (see the recently archived discussion, archive4): I pointed to physical (biological) evidence, presented in court (by a prosecution witness), and uncontested, that a little girl might have been sexually assaulted, and you reacted with outrage, as might be expected - except that your anger was directed against ME! Shoot the messenger.196.15.168.40 04:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You wasted your time bringing it up again BigDT. I have no interest in conversing with 196.15.168.40. He is a sad being who defends a murderer. Another user tolerated him for a long time, but I will not. He makes me sick. That's all I gotta say. You can archive this section again, if you wish. Fighting for Justice 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll rearchive it, but please see WP:NPA. Regardless of the correctness of this user's position, there is no reason to engage in personal attacks. BigDT 03:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Freeman (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

This article violates Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons.

First of all, the article is highly biased. When blatant POV statements are removed, the author promptly reinserts them (See history and discussion pages.)

Second, the article is factually incorrect. For example, it claims that the Freemans own SIX houses, which is not accurate. Additionally, a good portion of the article is actually written about Patsy Freeman rather than Bill Freeman.

It is apparent that the author of this article has a personal vendetta against the Freemans. I am requesting this article be replaced by a neutral article about Bill Freeman's life and his work as a Christian speaker and writer such as his numerous writings and speaking engagements across the country. If a neutral version of this article is repeatedly tampered with, I request that it either be locked to prevent further vandelism, or deleted entirely to prevent the propogation of misinformation.

Wh4ever 00:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for deletion here. Please feel free to participate and help build a consensus. I looked back in the history of the article and every single revision is nothing but an attack page ... so there's no good revision to revert to - it needs to be deleted. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. BigDT 03:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Smart (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

This article violates Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons.

It has been the target of frequent wiki lawyering, edit warring, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:V and similar violations. The frequent violators would intimidate the new editors and then call in their friendly admins who then ban such newbie editors as a result.

The biggest problem is that for many years (since 1996), this prominent game industry developer was net stalked, harrassed and libeled by a certain individual named Bill Huffman, an employee at NCR and who lives in San Diego. This guy has run the gamut from instigating a kid who lived near Smart to find out where he lives, follow him around the neighborhood, to spearheading a search to find out information about Smarts newborn daughter. He created a libelous website, which according to forum and Usenet reports, has repeatedly been closed by Smarts lawyers, only to pop up elsewhere. His friends have tried in vein to have his site added to the wiki and now they have resorted to engaging in wars on the talk page as a result of this consensus rejection. All further attempts were also quelched and repeatedly so.

This Huffman character showed up on Wiki a short while ago and even though his edits are not permitted on the article, he has been using the talk page to inject his usual brand of harrassment and libel on other editors as well as Smart. Both actions which violate Wiki. Please see..

Commentary and Criticism of Smart

Marriages and Divorces

Going with the strict WP:BLP guidelines, I started to remove his libelous talk page comments, but this morning I am told that I cant do that, even though I know for a fact that I can.

This is what has been happening and I fear that if I continue to try and impose the wiki policies, that I would be blocked again as I have been in the past.

I offer evidence of Bill Huffmans contributions to date.

We need an admin to please come to the page, read his contributions and draw their own conclusions. For someone who has stalked another person for nigh on ELEVEN years, why would any editor think that Huffmans intentions and appearance on Smarts wiki are anything buy nefarious and an attempt to push pov? WarHawkSP 13:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. WarHawkSP is a single purpose account who has consistently been edit warring on the Derek Smart page. He's been blocked multiple times for 3RR and edit warring on that page, and consistently misinterprets the BLP policy to suit his needs: recently he unilaterally deleted talk page comments he disagreed with, citing BLP's ability to remove libelous material: the talk page comments were CLEARLY opinion, which does not constitute Libel under U.S. law, and were fair comment on a public entity. I strongly advise any decision makers on this topic to ignore his request. PS: WarHawkSP's request has been filed while under the guise of informal mediation on the topic. The fact that he would go behind the back of the mediation and make a claim here, though he did notify the talk page, is rather disingenious to me. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 06:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Prem Rawat (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

One contributor (Gstaker (talk • contribs)) thinks that information sourced to an article in the Washington Post should be removed because he thinks the Washington Post is not a reliable source.

Another editor (Momento (talk • contribs)) asserts that allegations of anxiety and heavy drinking can only be made by a qualified doctor if not, as is the case in this article, the article, according to him, violates WP:BLP policy.

I disagree with the reasoning of these two contributors. Andries 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that we are citing quite selectively from that article. For example, the reporter describe some outrageous claims made against Prem Rawat by Mishler such as that he engaged in practices to "subdue the ego" that included "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", that are obviously sensationalists lies (and that even the most staunch detractors will attest to these being lies). I would say that the reason why, whoever added that selective quote did not add the other sensationalist material, may because undoubtedly demonstrates the lack of credibility of these protagonists and of the source. As exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, one could argue that this one-only source is in this case a "poor source" as per WP:BLP. Also note that these sensationalist allegations were never described in any secondary sources, probably because of lack of credibility. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The claims that you classify are as exceptional are not in the entry nor does anyone currently wants to add them, so I think that your comments are irrelevant. I omitted adding that part of the Washtington Post article to the entry because I could find no corroboration, in contrast to the claims of heavy drinking. I cannot know whether the excerpts that you quote are sensationalist lies or not because I was not there, though again, I do not intend to add them to the entry. Andries 00:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Good original research, Andries. Selective quoting from one article, based on your presumption of lack of corroboration for the part you did not quote, but omitting the fact that there is lack of corroboration for the part you did include, is violating NOR and demonstrates a lack of good editorial judgment in assessing the reliability of a source. Any editor reading the whole quote will know that this is sensationalist BS and will avoiding touching that source in a BLP as being "poorly sourced". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
In contrast to what you state, there is corroboration of the heavy drinking allegation that I included both in reputable sources and non-reputable sources. For example in the book by Spohia Collier Soul Rush that is also used as a source for the article Prem Rawat. Andries 03:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, I do not know whether what is written is sensational bullshit and I do not know how to find out. Andries 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
(ed conflict)Sources, Andries, sources. An editor can make the assessment that as these extraordinary allegations are not reported in any other source, and given that there are hundreds of scholarly sources on the subject that do not mention any of that, these cab be assessed to be extraordinary claims that do not have the necessary support to be considered anything than a "poor source", in particular given the context in which these were made. As editors we have some responsibilities that we cannot skirt by playing the "I don't know" card. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
In contrast to what you write, there is not a single scholarly biography on Prem Rawat. In contrast a lot has been written about the related subejct Divine Light Mission. Of course, I can say write that I do not know when I really do not know and have no way to find out. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, please stop disingenously stating that there is no corroboration of the heavy drinking allegation. Apart from the already mentioned reputable source, somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources for this are Dettmers statements, and Mishler radio interview. Andries 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your statement that I engage in Wikipedia:original research when I use my knowledge and my common sense to assess whether sources are reliable in a certain context. Assessing sources is the right and duty of contributors. Andries 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The source we are talking about describes the radio interview, so I do not understand what you are saying. There are no other sources corroborating any of these sensationalist claims. Who is the disingenuous here, Andries? Or is it that you believe that it is OK to selectively cite from an article based on an editors' presumptions based on "somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources"? You may need to refresh your memory on WP:NOR and WP:V, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Sophia Collier wrote in her book that Prem Rawat and his brother got slushed during Millenium '73. Andries 04:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, a 13 year old having some fun maybe?. But that is very different than saying that he "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol" alongside saying that he engaed in "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you please stop mentiong off-topic quotes? That latter quote is not in the article nor does anyone intend to add to the article. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Because if you did add the quotes that you selectively omitted, it will clearly destroy the credibility of the other statement and of the person that made them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you want me to add it? Andries 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is okay to quote selectively from a reputable source based on common sense, personal experience, corroboration form other reputable sources, or non-reputable sources etc. Again, assessing sources is the right and the duty of contributors. You can quote more from the article in the Washington Post if you think that I have omitted something important. Andries 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
No. Not OK, Andries, as per my arguments above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you please explain? I do not understand your reasoning. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I will try: The article describes the opinion of Misher, saying that in a radio interview he said that PR "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol". The same article describes him as saying that PR engaged in "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools". These explosive allegations are not mentioned in any other source besides this article. None of the scholarly sources describe these traits even these sources that containing highly critical material, such as these from your favorite Dutch scholars. So, as a responsible editor, and given this is a BLP, we can safely assert that this source does not meet the threshold for being a high quality reference: Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives, WP:BLP advises us. And we should listen to that advise, not dismiss it on the basis of one's knowledge of "somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the reputable source the Washington Post the allegation of heavy drinking was also reported by Mishler and another inner circle member called Dettmers in an article by John Macgregor Blinded by the Light that appeared in Good Weekend - the colour magazine shared by The Age (Melbourne) and The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002 (Page 38-42) and in The West Australian (Perth) dated Septembre 21, 2002 Andries 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. You forgot to disclose who exactly was the journalist that wrote the article, his trial for conspiring to steal data to harm PR and his students, the judge comments, and the affidavits he signed in which he says that "because of my media connections [...] I was supported by the Group to publish articles that furthered the goal of defaming Prem Rawat and his students" and that "based on no factual evidence, I arranged to publish in two Australian print media publications", etc. So, these sources are as unreliable as these can be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, the media articles were never retracted by the magazines. And there is another person who signed a similar affadivit in the same affair i.e. Tgubler (talk • contribs) who has not stopped being critical about Rawat. All this suggests that these affadavits were signed to get rid off a nasty litigation instead of a genuine change of heart. Andries 05:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean the person that was the co-conspirator about which the judge said to "suffer from a credibility handicap" when he tried to retract his testimony? In any case, you are just speculating. Let these affidavits speak for themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Jossi, you do not convince me when you assert that the Washington Post is not a reliable source. Please note that the wording of Washington Post article suggested that Rawat's anxiety was not just a detail of Rawat's private life, but relevant for his notability because of Rawat's claim to bring peace. I admit that the Washington Post would not be the most suitable references if there were multiple scholarly biographies of Rawat, but there is none. Andries 04:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC) amended for grammar 04:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
There are abundant scholarly sources about Prem Rawat, see the article itself, and none of them support these statements, even the most critical ones. The arguments are all laid here for other editors to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Untrue. The subject of these scholarly sources is Divine Light Mission or Elan Vital (organization). Not Prem Rawat. Where is the scholarly biography of Prem Rawat? Andries 05:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phil McGraw (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

An anon is adding disgusting libel to this article. I've blocked them for 24 hours, but be on the lookout. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Cena (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

On the article's talk page, we're looking to get consensus on whether or not putting statements about anal sex into his personal information section is relevant or not. To sum it up quickly, John Cena is a professional wrestler. Apparently in October, he made a statement on the Howard Stern radio show that he isn't into anal sex. It's been added, reverted, added, and reverted off and on in the past month or so. We'd like some outside views on this as to its relevance within the confines of the article (does the fact that the section is all about personal information open it up to something like this?) and whether this is an issue at all in terms of the guidelines for BLP. Thanks, Metros232 06:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earl Mindell (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

This is an author whose article is on the radar of several POV pushers who want to highlight the dubiousness of some elements of the subject's history and current activities. The main reason I'm posting here is because some of the sources for references (like quackwatch) are out of my experience as to whether or not they are acceptable. POV creeps into the article on a regular basis also. Anchoress 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/o/Wikipedia%7EBiographies_of_living_persons_Noticeboard_e3c5.html"